Comments on: Should the NYT charge for early access to the news? http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/ Sat, 25 May 2013 13:49:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mark Loundy http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-836513 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:25:33 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-836513 “Early?” The base expectation of news purveyors is inevitably becoming “now.” Once it’s been vetted, I want to see it. There will be no early.

@MarkLoundy

]]> By: Lucas http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-835580 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:03:58 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-835580 I, as a Brazilian who sometimes read the American news media have to agree with him. Sorry Zecharix.

]]> By: jeffrey calman http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834959 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:42:50 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834959 So what exactly is the difference between the NY Times potentially selling information to hedge funds before it reaches the general public and “insider trading?”

]]> By: bob http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834842 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:19:18 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834842 When the NYT was printed in Manhattan, it was possible to buy the early edition at newsstands right around the corner at 11:30pm, give or take a few minutes. The theater companies would wait around Sardis on opening night hoping for a nice review to come from that newsstand. THe price of the paper was still the same, but it sort of favored the rich because you had to be a bit richer to live in Manhattan to get it.

Maybe they shouldn’t charge extra, but only give the news to the subscribers first. Let the free folks coming to the web site get a “general edition”. The subscribers can get the full news from a “professional edition” or something like that. If the price isn’t outrageous, I’m sure it wouldn’t look as bad. I think the price for the special feed is what gets people cheesed off. It should also be available to all who are willing to pay.

]]> By: David Brauchli http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834831 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:54:53 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834831 Two comments: One – Politico has a premium site that people pay thousands of dollars a year to access and their content is available earlier and mostly through twitter to their premium subscribers. This has in no way hurt their readership on the general Politico site. Why would a general reader of the NYT care whether or not he was getting information pushed to him earlier or not?

Secondly, a few years back someone at Merrill or Salomon (or another of the big banks) was busted by the feds because he had written a program that used the MILLISECONDS between when an institutional investor placed an order and when the order was executed to make a trade for the bank. The trader was making bazillions until he got caught for insider trading. So 30 seconds of information not yet released to the general trading public is certainly worth a very prime subscription to the NYT. Were I the NYT I would actively consider doing exactly what Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg and DJ do.

As they say, any port in a storm.

]]> By: BKS http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834750 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:19:57 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834750 Yup, nothing more “left wing” then selling the rights to news and information to hedge funds in the name of protecting their corporate sponsors. That’s pure socialism right there.

]]> By: Content Currents http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834746 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:09:39 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834746 Whatever money the NYT may gain by charging hedge funds a premium for early news access, it would lose in site traffic and therefore ad and circulation revenue. In the period between hedge fund and regular publication, aggregators and curators would share the news with consumers. In 2010, Rolling Stone – in an attempt to bolster newsstand print sales – kept its blockbuster story about General McChrystal off rollingstone.com. In the meantime, Politico and other sites published the story and rollingstone.com lost the viral benefits of being first.

]]> By: Karen Kazaryan http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834686 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:26:40 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834686 Reality has a well known liberal bias

]]> By: Stephen http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834592 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:40:56 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834592 The circulation of major metro newspapers never reached more than 20% of the population even 50 years ago. The NYT has never reached more than 10% of New Yorkers in print. Newspapers have ALWAYS been an exclusive product- but they sold to the most wealthy and the most politically connected, ergo the better ad rates. This 15 year experiment with the larger populace has not worked out. Time to put the statues back in the palace. It’s bread, circuses and Huffpo for the rabble.

]]> By: joeymarburger http://gigaom.com/2012/04/24/should-the-nyt-charge-for-early-access-to-the-news/#comment-834590 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:33:08 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=514039#comment-834590 Ethics? I’m sure users would pay $299 a year to hedge. Isn’t that what Giga Om pro is? But when all of you’re clientele can pay it is it really that “exclusive”?

]]>